Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ram Niranjan Lal Gupta vs Col. Sarabjit Singh on 16 January, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
CP No. 747/2012
MA No.2937/2012
MA No.2938/2012
in
OA No.4021/2010
New Delhi, this the 16th day of January, 2013
Honble Mr. Jog Singh, Member (J)
Honble Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A)
Shri Ram Niranjan Lal Gupta,
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Mal Gupta,
R/o Upadhyay Dharam Shala,
Shukartal,
Distt. Muzaffarnagar (UP). Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri J.P. Gupta)
Versus
1. Col. Sarabjit Singh,
Commandant 510 Army Base Workshop,
Meerut Cantt, Meerut (UP).
2. Ved Prakash,
Pay & Accounts Officer,
5, (Pension), Treasury Building,
Tis Hazari, Delhi 110 054. Respondents
(By Advocates: Sh. R.N. Singh for R-1 and
Sh.Jayaprakash, AAO for R-2.
ORDER (ORAL)
By Mr. Jog Singh, Member (J):
This Contempt Petition has been filed by the applicant against non-implementation of the directions contained in this Tribunals order dated 01.12.2010 passed in OA No. 4021/2010. The respondent No. 5 i.e. Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Brar Square, Delhi Contonment, New Delhi was directed to do the needful in the matter of disbursement of fixed medical allowance @ Rs.100/- per month (now revised to Rs.300/- per month). The applicant appears to have retired from the 510, Army Base Workshop while working as Store Superintendent on 29.02.1984 and used to get his pension from Pay & Accounts Officer No.V, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Tis Hazari upto 31.12.2006. Thereafter, he opted to draw the pension from Punjab National Bank, Shahdara, Delhi 110 032. In these circumstances, it is not clear as to whether the current Pension Disbursing Authority or previous Pension Disbursing Authority is the competent authority to do the needful in the matter. Moreover, the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer (DPDO), Brar Square, Delhi Contonment, New Delhi i.e. the respondent no.5 in the OA, has not been impleaded as party respondent/contemnor in the Contempt Petition. In this backdrop, we cannot proceed with the Contempt Petition any more and, therefore, dispose of the same with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh and better Original Application, if so advised, by inducting necessary parties.
2. With the above said liberty, Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. Accordingly, MA No.2937/2012 and MA No. 2938/2012 also stand disposed of.
(Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu ) ( Jog Singh )
Member (A) Member (J)
naresh